On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:09:42PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 01:04:37PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > @@ -2498,22 +2449,24 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct
> > mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > }
> >
> > mutex_lock(&memcg_limit_mutex);
> > - if (limit < memcg->memory.limit) {
> > + inverted = memsw ? limit < memcg->memory.limit :
> > + limit > memcg->memsw.limit;
> > + if (inverted)
> > mutex_unlock(&memcg_limit_mutex);
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > break;
> > }
>
> For some reason, I liked this patch more without this extra variable :-)
Well, I'll refrain myself from commenting more because we are now at
the risk of starting a coding style war over this.
- [PATCH] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_resize_limit() Yu Zhao
- Re: [PATCH] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_resize_limit... Nikolay Borisov
- Re: [PATCH] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_resize_limit... Vladimir Davydov
- [PATCH v2] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_resize_limit(... Yu Zhao
- Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_resiz... Vladimir Davydov
- Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_r... Yu Zhao
- Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_resiz... kbuild test robot
- Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_resiz... kbuild test robot
- [PATCH v3] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_resize_limit(... Yu Zhao

